Currently browsing posts about: Food-industry

Ray Goldberg.  Food Citizenship: Food System Advocates in an Era of Distrust. Oxford University Press, 2018.

As should be obvious from this cover, I have a special interest in this book.  For more than 20 years, I’ve been attending an annual meeting of food industry executives, entrepreneurs, and a sprinkling of advocates, government officials, and academics brought together by its author, Ray Goldberg, to try to encourage mutual understanding if not agreement.

When the meeting started, Ray was an agribusiness professor at the Harvard Business School.  After his retirement, the meeting moved to the Kennedy School of Government.  It still continues.

This book consists of Ray’s interviews with dozens of people who have attended this meeting over the years.  Ray interviewed people with an enormous range of involvement in food as well as of opinion about what should be done to improve food systems.

If truth be told, I always felt like a spectator at this meeting, and I am enormously surprised and honored to see that my interview comes first in the book, and that Ray mentions it in his introduction and conclusion.

I think the book is worth reading.  Or, as it happens, watching.

Oxford has posted the videotaped interviews online.  Here’s mine.

Access to Nutrition has just published its 2018 global report.  Its Global Index:

Measures companies’ contributions to good nutrition against international norms and standards and includes a separate ranking of the world´s leading manufacturers of breast-milk substitutes (BMS).

The report summarizes its findings:

The 2018 Index shows the world’s biggest F&B companies have stepped up their efforts to encourage better diets, mostly through new and updated nutrition strategies and policies, improved commitments on affordability and accessibility, better performance on nutrition labeling and health and nutrition claims, and more disclosure of information across categories. Nevertheless, ATNF has serious concerns about the healthiness of the world’s largest global F&B manufacturers’ product portfolios.

Access to Nutrition ranks the European companies, Nestlé, Unilever, and Danone, highest on its lists.

Its “serious concerns”?

• Poorly defined reformulation targets
• Unclear approaches to making healthy products for affordable and accessibe
• Continued irresponsible marketing to children
• Inadequate employee education programs
• Inadequate support to breastfeeding mothers
• Inadequate labeling
• Inadequate support for public health measures

On this last one:

Indeed.

 

 

Forbes has published a ranking of the top 2000 global companies (all kinds, not just food) by a composite score of revenue, profit, assets, and market value.

Forbes summarizes some of the information for food processing companies.  By its measure, Anheuser Busch, Nestlé, and PepsiCo are the top three.

Coca-Cola, however, ranks #209, a big drop from last year’s #86.  It did not have a good year last year.

You can sort the list by name or category.  I did that for four categories: Beverage, Food processing, Food retail, and Restaurants.

Walmart does not show up as a food retailer; Forbes considers it a Discount Store, even though food accounts for nearly half of Walmart’s revenues, nearly $200 billion a year.

Here are the food, beverage, retail, and restaurants that show up as among the top 250 companies, worldwide.  I only included sales and profits in this  table; you would have to add in assets and market value to understand the ranking system.

Food, beverage, retail, and restaurant companies among the biggest 250 companies worldwide.

RANK	COMPANY	SALES $ Billions	PROFITS $ Billions
24	Walmart, US	500.3*	9.9
41	Anheuser-Busch, Belgium	56.4	7.9
48	Nestlé, Switzerland	91.2	7.3
102	PepsiCo, US	64.0	4.9
103	Unilever, Netherlands	60.6	6.8
126	Kraft-Heinz, US	26.2	11.1
209	Coca-Cola, US	33.7	1.4
211	Mondelēz International, US	26.2	3.2
239	Danone, France	27.8	2.8
241	McDonald’s, US	22.3	5.4

*About 40% of sales are from food.

This is why Walmart is the elephant in the food-business room.

The New York Times describes the enormous gap between the pay of company chief executives and their employees.

Its two printed pages of lists compare CEO total annual compensation (in millions of dollars) to the median pay of employees (in $ thousands).  

Median means half the employees get that amount or more, but the other half gets that amount or less.

I looked for the data on companies that produce, food, beverage, or agricultural products.  I could not find many (where is Coca-Cola?).  Several of the companies of interest—Monsanto, Sysco, and Procter & Gamble, for example—list the pay of the CEOs, but not employees.

Even so, the comparison is striking.  Repeat: CEO pay is in $ millions; worker pay is in $ thousands.

COMPANY	CEO TOTAL ANNUAL COMPENSATION, $ MILLIONS	MEDIAN WORKER PAY, $ THOUSANDS
Mondelez	42.4	42.9
Weight Watchers	33.4	6.0
PepsiCo	25.9	47.8
Walmart	22.2	19.2
McDonald’s	21.8	7.0
Archer Daniels Midland	15.8	57.3

The Times interactive lists provide calculations of the ratios (and its account explains the limitations of these data—part-time work, etc).

If you need quantifiable evidence for income inequality, here it is.

Since September, the New York Times has been investigating how the food industry markets its products in the developing world, and how this marketing is encouraging a rising prevalence of obesity and its health consequences. The series is called Planet Fat.   This is the complete set to date, in reverse chronological order.

If you haven’t read them, this week is a good time to catch up.  Enjoy!

One Man’s Stand Against Junk Food as Diabetes Climbs Across India

India is “sitting on a volcano” of diabetes. A father’s effort to ban junk food sales in and near schools aims to change what children eat.

By GEETA ANAND

Dec. 26, 2017

 

Dec. 23, 2017

 

Dec. 11, 2017

 

Nov. 13, 2017

 

Oct. 2, 2017

 

Oct. 2, 2017

 

Sept. 16, 2017

 

Sept. 17, 2017

 

Big Food trade associations got a meeting at the White House to argue that the deadlines for implementing the new Nutrition Facts panel and GMO labeling need to be synchronized (translation: delayed as long as possible).

Here’s who came to the meeting with the White House Office of Management and Budget:

• The Grocery Manufacturers Association
• National Confectioners Association
• Food Marketing Institute
• International Dairy Foods Association
• American Frozen Food Institute
• SNAC International

We know about the meeting because the White House released a record of it.

The current compliance dates:

• July 26, 2018 for implementing the Nutrition Facts Panel
• July 29, 2018 for when the USDA is supposed to release rules for GMO labels, presumably starting the process of public comment and years before implementation

The meeting participants provided two handouts:

• Summary of the arguments for further delay
• Canada’s rules will take 5 years; why can’t ours?

A reality check: go to your local supermarket.  Lots of food producers are already using the new Nutrition Facts Panel.

This is a consumer-unfriendly request.

We don’t need more delays.

Bridget Huber of The Food and Environment Reporting Network (FERN) has produced a don’t-miss” article in The Nation: “Welcome to Brazil, where a food revolution Is changing the way people eat: How the country challenged the junk-food industry and became a global leader in the battle against obesity.”

As she explains, Latin America is leading worldwide opposition to food industry marketing, and much is happening in Brazil.

She writes about the advocacy work of Carlos Monteiro, Professor of Nutrition in the School of Public Health, University of Sao Paolo, who says:

The local food system is being replaced by a food system that is controlled by transnational corporations…this dietary deterioration doesn’t just harm bodily health but also the environment, local economies, and Brazil’s rich food traditions. We are seeing a battle for the consumer.

She further explains:

Over the last 30 years, big transnational food companies have aggressively expanded into Latin America. Taking advantage of economic reforms that opened markets, they’ve courted a consumer class that has grown in size due to generally increasing prosperity and to antipoverty efforts like minimum-wage increases and cash transfers for poor families. And as sales of highly processed foods and drinks have plateaued (and even fallen, in the case of soda) in the United States and other rich countries, Latin America has become a key market…In recent years, Brazil has inscribed the right to food in its Constitution and reformed its federal school-lunch program to broaden its reach while bolstering local farms.

And in 2014, the Ministry of Health released new dietary guidelines that made healthy-food advocates across the world swoon [I did a post on them when they were released].  Monteiro helped lead the team that wrote them; the guidelines transcend a traditional nutrition-science frame to consider the social, cultural, and ecological dimensions of what people eat. They also focus on the pleasure that comes from cooking and sharing meals and frankly address the connections between what we eat and the environment.

Huber’s investigative report is long and detailed, and well worth the read.

And it comes with a great graphic comparing the situation in Brazil with that of the U.S. (this is just an excerpt):

Those of us advocating for food systems that are healthier for people and the planet have much to learn from our colleagues in the South.

What Britain’s exit from the European Union (“Brexit”) means for food and agriculture is worth attention.

As The Guardian put it,

It is no coincidence that food and drink is at the heart of so much of the debate about whether we are better off in or out of the EU. Worth £80bn a year and employing 400,000 people, it is our largest manufacturing sector and a big exporter and importer. Moreover, 38% of its workers are foreign-born, placing its demand for cheap labour at the centre of arguments about immigration.

The common agriculture policy (CAP) swallows up nearly 40% of the total EU budget…Britain produces just more than half what it consumes and depends on Europe to provide more than a quarter of the rest, while the EU’s population of more than 500 million people provides the UK’s most significant export market for food.

Agrimoney, a London-based concern that reports on commodity markets began its report on Brexit’s impact with these words:

Oh dear.

Tim Lang, professor at City University London’s Centre for Food Policy, told Food Navigator:

People will pay more for food. The British people have voted to raise the food prices…Where do they think their food comes from? Planet Zog?

Bakery & Snacks is especially interested in the meaning of Brexit for the food and drink industries.

It produced a Special Edition highlighting its articles on the topic.

The UK’s decision to leave the European Union goes against the wishes of 71% of the UK food & drink industry, according to a poll by the Food and Drink Federation. William Reed Business Media publications assess the impact for individual sectors such as snacks, confectionery, dairy, bakery and feed as well as food ingredients suppliers. What will Brexit mean for the food, feed and drink industries?

• Britain votes to leave the EU: What now?: Britain has voted to leave the European Union and Prime Minister David Cameron has resigned as a result. Across Europe and the UK, the food industry is coming to terms with the outcome… Read
• Brexit fallout: Snack sales face threat of drop in discretionary spend: Sweet and savory snacks will be among the hardest hit UK food categories as a result of the Brexit vote, according to analysts Euromonitor International… Read
• Brexit: The industry responds: As snacks and bakery businesses across the globe come to terms with the ramifications of the UK’s impending exit from the European Union, we gather responses from businesses, trade bodies and stakeholders… Read
• Confectionery to be worst hit UK food sector after Brexit, says Euromonitor: Confectionery volumes are forecast to decline faster than any other packaged food category after the UK voted to leave the European Union… Read
• Dairy reacts to Brexit vote: Following the decision of the British public to leave the EU, attention has turned to how business will be affected, how negotiations will take place and the timescales involved… Read
• BREXIT: Leave vote poses huge questions for Britain’s agricultural supply industry, says UK feed lobby: The result of the Brexit referendum was announced this morning with a vote in favor of the UK leaving the EU, and the British prime minster, David Cameron, subsequently announcing he is going to step down. Sterling has hit a 30 year low and uncertainty now reigns in the UK feed and agribusiness sector… Read
• Industry reaction: What #Brexit means for UK & EU nutrition sectors: For the first time the European Union has lost a member after the British people yesterday voted to leave the bloc which began life as the European Economic Community in 1951… Read

And here is one more.

• British food firms set to increase trade with US following Brexit vote: UK confectionery and snack businesses may look to ramp up their trade with the US in light of last week’s vote to leave the European Union… Read

It’s obvious from reading all this that the effects of the Brexit decision are largely unknown. not easy to predict, but unlikely to be good.  The follow-up will be interesting to watch.

Fingers crossed that the fallout won’t be as bad as predicted.

Additions

• Bee Wilson’s eloquent elegy for the benefits of European Union food for British palates in the New Yorker
• Tim Lang’s expanded and referenced discussion in The Guardian